[blml] Law 27

[Stefanie Rohan]

> Guthrie schrieb:
>>
>> [1] *Woolly* The meaning of an insufficient bid is at best nebulous,
>> depending on what the insufficient bidder imagines the auction to have
>> been. IMO it can have no meaning, as far as the law is concerned.
>>
Matthias Berghaus

> I am at a loss to understand that last sentence. Of course it has a
> meaning, the bidder intended it to have a meaning. Partner may not be
> able to read that intention in rare cases, but it is there. OTOH,
> sometimes the meaning will be absolutely unmistakeable. 1C - p - 1C.
> This can only be a L25 case or a 1C opener.

What is known to the table is what the IBer has bid, not what he intended. I 
agree that this issue is problematic.

Guthrie schrieb:

>> [2] Open to cunning *exploits* by secretary birds (unless local
>> regulations thwart them, they can agree different sets of complex
>> conventions that depend on whether they condone the insufficient bid.
>>
Matthias Berghaus

> Leaving aside that IMO agreements based on opps's irregularities have
> been illegal for a long time,

I think that this is untrue. I think that such agreements have always been 
legal. And making them illegal would be silly; regular partnerships will 
have de facto agreements after it has happened once or twice. I don't see 
any problem with this.

> anyone squandering his mental capacity on
> devising ( and remembering) methods that only come up once in a blue
> moon could do so if I had a say in that. This practically guarantees
> mishaps. If hope those folks play against me a lot.

Well, they will only have a mishap once in a blue moon, so it should not 
matter. Anyway, agreements might be very general, like what it means if, 
after an IB you repeat the bid you have already made, or support partner's 
suit at the 1-level.
Guthrie schrieb:

>> [3] Fraught with *copyright* problems. According to Grattan, the WBFLC
>> may not make even minor corrigenda to the law-book without flouting
>> draconian copyright agreements. (Although, I confess that we non-lawyers
>> find this hard to believe). Anyway this radical change must drive a
>> coach and horses though any such protocol.
>>
Matthias Berghaus

>> One would imagine that the WBF as copyright holder has authorized this
> change....

I believe that it is the Portland Club who hold the copyright.

Guthrie schrieb:

>> [4] *Complex* and unnecessary. I would prefer: you must substitute a
>> pass for an insufficient bid and any inference emanating from the
>> insufficient bid is unauthorised information to the offending side.
>>
Matthias Berghaus

> Brilliant scheme. Randomising results from those deals by enforcing a
> pass must enhance the enjoyment of the game at least by the factor 100.
> What fun. Everyone else gets a score related to Bridge, while this table
> throws the dice. Why not hold Bridge congresses at the local casino?

Again, it doesn't happen very often. I do not agree with Nigel's suggestion, 
but I do not think that the rewritten Law is a solution either.  I certainly 
think that it is too complex. In any case, if a simpler Law (for example, 
the previous version or NG's suggestion) results in a poor score for the 
offending side, perhaps they will make sufficient bids next time.


Stefanie Rohan
London, England